Such observations are quite legitimate , another cross-over, similarity between differing cultural values is the evolution of 'democracy'. The American Revolution gave momentum to the French Revolution, and both could be said to be the brainchild of the Enlightenment.

It is perhaps not too far fetched to say, that the eventual disappointments with the apolitical aspects of the Enlightenment, was to usher in the later alleged inherent faults with liberalism. The traces of that are all too appearent with the climate we are living in.

AutSider wrote:I care about my group surviving and about destroying those who threaten the survival of my group.

leftist, rightist, uppist, downist, call me whatever you want

At this point I'm a firm supporter of organized crime like a power structure reminiscent to the mafia.

But:

AutSider wrote:At a fundamental level there isn't much difference between organized crime and the government.

Otto_West wrote:I don't identify with any politics or government really, I only identify with my own self interests and survival. I do support hierarchy but only one that I benefit from. As a general rule I don't support anything that doesn't benefit me which can be said of a lot of things in the world. (New belief of mine contrasting to older anarchist ideals I use to cling to, not anymore.) This is my highest aspiring ideal for what it is worth.

This reminds me of Max Stirner (Johann Kaspar Schmidt) and his book that was published in 1844: „Der Einzelne und sein Eigentum“ (translated English title: „The Ego and its Own“; although the righter translation is: „The Individual and His Property“).

Otto_West wrote:(Probably not much for you.)

Nonetheless I am no fan of the eradication of the west or white European people. This we can both agree on.

But I am just asking myself whether one can be „a firm supporter of organized crime“ (Otto West) who does not „identify with any politics or government really“ (Otto West), although „there isn’t much difference between organized crime and the government“ (Autsider).

Yes, I'm a fan of Stirner. The difference is between that of a small time gangster versus a larger criminal organization, or decentralization versus centralization.

Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.

Otto_West wrote:In capitalism everybody is renters where private ownership is a grand illusion for the gullible, under socialism all so called private property in reality is state property. (Under capitalism there is the illusion of private property, under socialism there is not even the illusion.)

In capitalism you rent from corporate and banking fiefdoms that practically own the government, under socialism you rent from the state or government that owns everything and everybody. Notice in both the appeasement to central authoritarianism that only differ slightly from each other.

Right, but the problem is that Non-continental-Europeans almost always think that „socialism“ means "communism“ in the sense of (for example) Sovietism, and that is not true, because examples of other socialisms (the Roman Catholic Montanism, the German [especially Prussian] Socialism, the German National Socialism) are also known and experienced (more or less), and they have never been communistic, on the contrary: they have been anti-communistic - not seldom even more anti-communistic than capitalism has ever been - and by far less anti-capitalistic than communism has ever been.

Communism was the natural evolution of socialism in its utopic form much as pure capitalism's evolution is usually that of fascism. Socialism evolved into communism historically as capitalism evolves into corporate fascism. The world only gets the option of communism, or corporate fascism, pretty neat huh? Also, both are controlled by the same group of people.

Ever since the beginning of the industrial era it has been a constant competition over the entire planet geopolitically between communism and corporate fascism. I of course despise both systems and wish there was a kind of alternative, unfortunately one has not stepped forward yet.

Last edited by Otto_West on Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:59 am, edited 4 times in total.

Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.

All I can say is that Republicans are proud to be the better leftists.So many of them have been successfully reconstructed into leftists after having been deconstructed for decades.

That is true. Although besides rhetoric and its practical consequences, left and right does not really exist.

The United States in all regards revolves around a single uni-party united by greed and lust of power putting forward only the pretense of having different political ideologies. There is only one political party or establishment in the United States and that is Wallstreet.

Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.

No human system of government is perfect so the knack is to find the one which is the least imperfect and then make it work for the greatest number of people. And needless to say it is an eternal work in progress

surreptitious57 wrote:No human system of government is perfect so the knack is to find the one which is the least imperfect and then make it work for the greatest number of people. And needless to say it is an eternal work in progress

It never works for the greatest number people but instead only a minority of people, what you're pushing is a myth.

Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.

Any society and government that isn't set up explicitly and implicitly in terms of securing the highest and most necessary values for the greatest number of people as possible, even if that is always an ideal only, is fundamentally irrational and deserves what it always gets, namely its own destruction.

Otto_West wrote:Pretty much, now we're on the same page. Why don't I support any political or government assembly? Quite simple, because I can't control it and it doesn't benefit me.

Going into our ancient past gangs have always existed and at one point before centralized government competed against even monarchies. The crux of the matter is that all governments or states historically in origin started out as violent gangs that after they eliminated all the other competitors pronounced themselves centralized governments.

Exactly. The official government merely has the biggest stick, forcing other, anti-government (criminal) organisations to operate secretly.

The reason open criminal structures of government hate or despise criminals that are private citizens is because they aren't working with them(for them), hate competition, and because they work under or outside the radar that they themselves can't control.

Now since the invention of socialism governments try to make themselves look benevolent out for everybody's welfare or well being using prop words like that of community which of course anybody with any kind of common sense knows is all bullshit. What it really is reflects that of a Trojan horse in that you destroy people you wish to control from within by getting them to let their guard down. Other writers in the past have referred to this end as killing people with kindness or in this case killing and enslaving the masses through pretentious authoritarian benevolence. It is a lot easier to enslave, destroy, or contain your opponents under a banner of friendship, security, public welfare, trust, and protection. With this deception we can see modern western civic nationalist (globalist)governments utilize this ploy constantly and the idiot masses fall in line every time because most don't even have the capacity to question the social propaganda that is being spoon fed to them daily. They're too stupid to see the trap being layed and encircling around them. Eventually they'll figure it out but by then it will be too late much the same with the Trojan horse in Troy. Unfortunately if you're the enlightened and awakened man or woman you're damned as a small minority having no power to do much of anything even being completely conscious of everything going on.

Well said, especially the bolded part. Depressing and hard to accept, but it is how it is.

Void_X_Zero wrote:Any society and government that isn't set up explicitly and implicitly in terms of securing the highest and most necessary values for the greatest number of people as possible, even if that is always an ideal only, is fundamentally irrational and deserves what it always gets, namely its own destruction.

It's not even an ideal, it's the kind of baffling bullshit they give lip service to in order to pacify the plebes. No government in the history of the world has actually ever cared about a majority's happiness or well being. Sorry, calling bullshit.

Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.

Void_X_Zero wrote:Any society and government that isn't set up explicitly and implicitly in terms of securing the highest and most necessary values for the greatest number of people as possible, even if that is always an ideal only, is fundamentally irrational and deserves what it always gets, namely its own destruction.

It's not even an ideal, it's the kind of baffling bullshit they give lip service to in order to pacify the plebes. No government in the history of the world has actually ever cared about a majority's happiness or well being. Sorry, calling bullshit.

This is an irrationality principle that limits the survivability and stability of a society. The term "majority of people in a society" is nothing more than a statistical balancing phenomenon to which a successful society must align itself, otherwise it will fail quite simply because it has failed to adhere to its own ontological basis.

It would be like trying to build a car when a majority of the parts aren't working together, or if the car ends up being hostile to a majority of its parts and the car manufacturer doesn't care about a majority of the parts: it is simply irrational. The car will quickly stop working.

Why would any structure deliberately ignore its own component parts? To do so is a principle of irrationality that leads to breakdown.

Void_X_Zero wrote:Any society and government that isn't set up explicitly and implicitly in terms of securing the highest and most necessary values for the greatest number of people as possible, even if that is always an ideal only, is fundamentally irrational and deserves what it always gets, namely its own destruction.

It's not even an ideal, it's the kind of baffling bullshit they give lip service to in order to pacify the plebes. No government in the history of the world has actually ever cared about a majority's happiness or well being. Sorry, calling bullshit.

This is an irrationality principle that limits the survivability and stability of a society. The term "majority of people in a society" is nothing more than a statistical balancing phenomenon to which a successful society must align itself, otherwise it will fail quite simply because it has failed to adhere to its own ontological basis.

It would be like trying to build a car when a majority of the parts aren't working together, or if the car ends up being hostile to a majority of its parts and the car manufacturer doesn't care about a majority of the parts: it is simply irrational. The car will quickly stop working.

Why would any structure deliberately ignore its own component parts? To do so is a principle of irrationality that leads to breakdown.

Yes, you're correct on point but the problem with you is that you assume human society is a rational one and what you've mentioned is the very reason why more than likely human civilization is doomed.

Your entire world of fantasy and make believe is doomed, have a nice day.